Exposed: Uncensored WikiLeaks cables posted to Web

September 1, 2011
By RAPHAEL G. SATTER , Associated Press

In this July 14, 2011 photo, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange talks to members of the media during a news conference in central London. Anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks said Thursday that its massive archive of unredacted U.S. State Department cables had been exposed in a security breach which it blamed on its one-time partner, Britain's Guardian newspaper. (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)

Uncensored copies of WikiLeaks' massive tome of U.S. State Department cables circulated freely Thursday across the Internet, leaving a whole new batch of U.S. sources vulnerable to embarrassment and potential retribution.

The United States, meanwhile, denied ever cooperating with the anti-secrecy group, and blasted Wikileaks for allegedly threatening national security and the safety of confidential informants.

WikiLeaks has blamed Britain's the Guardian newspaper for the breach, saying that an investigative journalist had revealed the password needed to unlock the files in a book published earlier this year. Guardian journalists countered that it was sloppy security at Julian Assange's anti-secrecy website which helped expose the cables to the world.

In a 1,600-word-long editorial posted to the Internet, WikiLeaks accused the Guardian's investigative reporter David Leigh of betrayal, saying that his disclosure had jeopardized months of "careful work" that WikiLeaks had undertaken to redact and publish the cables.

"Revolutions and reforms are in danger of being lost as the unpublished cables spread to intelligence contractors and governments before the public," WikiLeaks said in its statement.

Leigh and the Guardian both denied wrongdoing, and the exact sequence of events WikiLeaks was referring to remained clouded in confusion and recriminations.

It has long been known that WikiLeaks lost control of the raw cables even before they were published. One copy of the secret documents leaked to The New York Times in the fall of 2010, and other media organizations, including The Associated Press, have since received copies independently of WikiLeaks.

But never before has the entire catalog of unredacted cables made its way to the Web.

Until recently, WikiLeaks released relatively small batches of files to its partner organizations - dozens of international media and human rights groups - so they could remove information which could put innocent people in jeopardy. Only then were the files posted online.

But with the unredacted cables now sloshing around in the public domain, all that work has effectively been thrown out the window.

In its statement, WikiLeaks laid the blame on the Guardian and an unnamed "German individual."

Leigh, however, told the AP that WikiLeaks' assertion was "time-wasting nonsense."

He acknowledged that Assange had supplied him with a password needed to access the U.S. embassy cables from a server back in July of 2010 - but said that Assange told him the site would expire within a matter of hours.

"What we published much later in our book was obsolete and harmless," Leigh said in an email. "We did not disclose the URL (web address) where the file was located, and in any event, Assange had told us it would no longer exist."

Leigh added that "I don't see how a member of the public could access such a file anyway, unless a WikiLeaks or ex-WikiLeaks person tells them where it is located and what the file was called."

Another Guardian journalist, who once worked for WikiLeaks, said that Assange was to blame, alleging that the 40-year-old Australian had recycled an old password when he republished the encrypted data later. "Personal banking sites tell you not to reuse passwords. WikiLeaks doing the same for a file of such sensitivity is gross negligence," James Ball said in a message posted to Twitter early Thursday.

Repeated attempts to reach WikiLeaks staffers for further clarification were unsuccessful, although on its Twitter feed the group contested statements by Leigh and others, warning of "continuous lies to come."

To add to the intrigue, WikiLeaks asked its 1 million or so followers to download a large coded file which it said it would decrypt at a later point. Then it threatened to directly publish the entire unredacted archive of State Department documents.

The latest in the WikiLeaks saga caps nine months or revelations which have infuriated and humiliated high-ranking officials across the world. Several people, including the U.S. ambassador to Mexico, have lost their jobs over the disclosures.

The revelations' impact has been debated. WikiLeaks says the cables' release played a key role in setting off the mass movement that has jolted dictatorial regimes across the Arab world and has exposed wrongdoing and double-dealing across the globe.

But American officials have warned that the disclosures could also have had serious consequences for informants, activists and others named in the cables - as well as American diplomacy more widely.

WikiLeaks claimed in its editorial that it had tried to warn the U.S. government about the impending breach. Speaking from Paris on Thursday, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland acknowledged that the group had been in touch, but rejected any suggestion that WikiLeaks had tried to limit the damage from the latest release.

"We have made clear our views and concerns about illegally disclosed classified information and the continuing risk to individuals and national security that such releases cause," Nuland told reporters.

"Wikileaks has, however, ignored our requests not to release or disseminate any U.S. documents it may possess and has continued its well-established pattern of irresponsible, reckless, and frankly dangerous actions," she said. "We are not cooperating with them."

(AP) -- The WikiLeaks website crashed Tuesday in an apparent cyberattack after the accelerated publication of tens of thousands of once-secret State Department cables by the anti-secrecy organization raised new concerns ...

Recommended for you

It sounds like a science-fiction nightmare. But "killer robots" have the likes of British scientist Stephen Hawking and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak fretting, and warning they could fuel ethnic cleansing and an arms race.

Photos. Messages. Bank account codes. And so much more—sit on a person's mobile device, and the question is, how to secure them without having to depend on lengthy password codes of letters and numbers. Vendors promoting ...

A startup team calls their work a product. They also call it a social movement. Many people in the over-7,000 islands in the Philippines lack access to electricity .The startup would like to make a difference. Their main ...

WikiLeaks accused the Guardian's investigative reporter David Leigh of betrayal, saying that his disclosure had jeopardized months of "careful work" that WikiLeaks had undertaken to redact and publish the cables.

How can they say anything other than, "Well played, sir.", to the responsible individual?

Or is it okay to be a hypocrite so long as you are supposedly on the side of the populace?

PS, wikileaks is a bunch of idiots if they think there aren't counter-intelligence personnel out there trying to do exactly what has been done here.

Actually it seems like you can take your pick of who to blame for this one, and seemingly this is just a case of human error from both wikileaks and the guardian. Boing Boing has a nice writeup with updates here: http://boingboing...les.html

if you have nothing to hide, you are honest and truthful, then you should welcome this extra channel of dissemination to your professed dearly-loved fellows humans on this planet. If you are lying through your teeth and spewing sugar-coated PC crap speeches through your mouths, then get f&**ed! I have enough of liars and hypocrites on this mudball.

WikiLeaks accused the Guardian's investigative reporter David Leigh of betrayal, saying that his disclosure had jeopardized months of "careful work" that WikiLeaks had undertaken to redact and publish the cables.

How can they say anything other than, "Well played, sir.", to the responsible individual?

Or is it okay to be a hypocrite so long as you are supposedly on the side of the populace?

PS, wikileaks is a bunch of idiots if they think there aren't counter-intelligence personnel out there trying to do exactly what has been done here.

This isn't two equal parties interacting, there is the truth and the lies. The person who did this is on the wrong side. Nice try, but you only persuade weak minded people.

Revealing the truth is never wrong, unless your intent is to foster corruption and fantasy.

No, there are things that should be secret, involving private personal information or criminal investigations. I am a big advocate of government transparency, but lets not pretend revealing everything is always right.

Life was so much simpler when we were all German.Before we let the Allies win the war.

Correction; Life was so much simpler when we were all African (or Chinese) when there was no concept of war...

This is another fallacy. Prior to "civilization" there was widespread tribal conflicts. For a case study take a look at tribes in New Guinea who are in a perpetual state of war with each other. I think the correct statement would be war and weapons were simpler and life was a struggle.

"..leaving a whole new batch of U.S. sources vulnerable to embarrassment and potential retribution."

I just wanted to point out that if certain government officials (of any country) are "embarrassed" by their own words/cables/documents then they obviously know that what they said is wrong/incorrect. Ie, guilt. Hence, logic dictates that that kind of information should be released so that attempts can be made to get the corrupt individuals out. In a true government, if everyone does their job to the best of their abilities no one would be embarrassed. Secret or otherwise. This is not a defense of Wikileaks but just pointing out the obvious. I personally believe that they have lost and forgotten the reason they started leaking certain secrets. Exposing hidden/covered up corruptions etc versus all secrets. A thin line but a distinction nevertheless.

"No, there are things that should be secret, involving private personal information or criminal investigations." - Shotman

There is nothing that government knows about you that isn't already recorded by corporations. In fact Google knows far more about you than your own government.

Whatever. Uploading such info on the internet for everyone to see is a bad idea, corporations or not. There may be lots of this sensitive info in the cables. Revealing the truth is not always good, tough usualy it is..

There are two types of revelation involved here. One of them is that the leaked files reveal diplomatic events and discussions, etc. Whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective about secrecy in these matters.

The other type of revelation is that the leaked files disclose the names of locals who have worked as drivers, translators, guides etc. Other locals, fighters for the opposite side, might decide that these drivers etc. have collaborated with the enemy, and that this means they're traitors who should be killed in retribution.

This second type is the big problem here. Not the first. If you think this second type is good, please explain how.

There are actions and there are consequences. Those who act should expect consequences from their actions. Those who expect protection in the form of secrecy are fools, since secrets have no guarantee of being kept.

If you conduct yourself in a honorable manner there is no need for secrecy.

Why should collaborators be protected? [...] If you conduct yourself in a honorable manner there is no need for secrecy.

They probably feel that they are doing the most honourable thing you can do.

Lots of people perceive the Taliban as cruel dictators and killers, and the West as democratic protectors of freedom. Many of these drivers and others help the side that fights for democracy, in hopes to end decades of grim cruelty and suffering. They risk their lives, not only for their own sake, but for their neighbours and their country.

I know some people, living comfortably in the West, think that our problems with corruption and greed somehow make our countries worse than the perpetual cruelty of horrifying dictatorships.

But can you seriously argue that it's dishonourable to take great risks, fighting for what you sincerely believe to be the best for your neighbours and your country?

Do you pass the same judgement against the people who fought against Pinochet's military junta?

Tens of thousands of people were murdered by the Pinochet regime. Was it dishonourable for people to react to this? Are you saying that the only honourable reaction is for people to accept such murders passively and never do anything?

Or are you saying that resistance movements should be open and publish their membership lists, so the regime can kill them all at their leisure?

Many resistance fighters endured horrible torture, doing their utmost to keep from disclosing the identity of their fellow resistance fighters. Are you saying that this was dishonourable? Would the honourable thing instead be to evade the torture, by immediately, willingly disclosing all the requested information, so that the regime could easily kill all their friends?

What defines which actions are honourable? Your armchair guess? Does the judgement of those directly involved count for nothing in your world?

the leaked files disclose the names of locals who have worked as drivers, translators, guides etc. Other locals, fighters for the opposite side, might decide that these drivers etc. have collaborated with the enemy, and that this means they're traitors who should be killed in retribution.

You oppose the persecution of alleged traitors by their own society while promoting the persecution and killing of the betrayed victims by the enemy regardless of their guilt.

If you think this second type is good, please explain how.

If you think the permanent killing of innocent "collateral damage" in a country that never started a war against the enemy is good, please explain now.

What defines which actions are honourable? Your armchair guess? Does the judgement of those directly involved count for nothing in your world?

Those most directly involved are the killed innocent victims and not their killers and betrayers.

Dishonourable are the killing of the innocent, the humiliation by calling them "collateral damage", the killing of children, the killing of the unarmed, torture, bombing, aggression wars, perverting democracy into plutocracy, the impunity of war criminals, and counterfeiting history.

You oppose [...] while promoting the persecution and killing of the betrayed victims by the enemy regardless of their guilt.

Promoting? Absolutely not! Bush's wars were a catastrophe for humanity! They were disastrous for the reasons that you allude to. They were even more disastrous because of their enormously destructive long-term effects on the relationships between the peoples of Earth.

Shortly after 9/11 there was a lot of sympathy for the US. There was a striking change in attitude among many left-leaning people here in Europe, who had always felt a strong animosity toward the US due to its perpetual meddling in Latin America, always removing democratically elected leaders and propping up dictators like Pinochet.

Many of these left-leaning people were suddenly warily reconsidering and softening their views of the US. For example, they started distinguishing more clearly between the stricken American people and the ever meddling US government. (Cont.)

(Cont.) Somewhat similar changes happened essentially around the globe. It looked like a small step toward different attitudes between the peoples of Earth, like we might be moving away from aggressively entrenched attitudes toward more open, listening attitudes, which in the long run might allow humanity to move together toward common goals.

Bush threw all this aside, harshened the tone dramatically, deepened the polarization, alienated even the US's allies, and poured tons of fuel on the fires of terrorism. It was so stunningly stupid that it seems unlikely that it could be motivated by stupidity alone.

Especially stunning in its incomprehensible stupidity was the massive fueling of the fires of terrorism. This changed terrorism from marginal, universally despised, to a major factor that is now reluctantly respected by far too many people. This did not happen soon after 9/11, Fox News propaganda notwithstanding. It only became possible with the wars and polarization. (Cont.)

However, I don't expect every Afghan driver and guide to make exactly the analysis that I make, and align his life along my conclusions. I expect him to act based on what happens to his family and neighbors.

If the Taliban forbid his daughter's schooling, and he feels that his daughter should have schooling, he'll make his decisions based on that. The world scene is very remote.

I find it unlikely that so many drivers and guides would take such huge risks for money. They know the local situation enough to understand that winning this war is very, very far from certain, so the risk is very high indeed.

The idea that they all would betray family, friends and neighbors just for money is unlikely enough that it would never occur to me to condemn them all out of hand, the way Vendicar and you do. When so many people risk their life, it's far more likely that they do it for goals that they believe in.

"The idea that they all would betray family, friends and neighbors just for money is unlikely enough that it would never occur to me to condemn them all out of hand, the way Vendicar and you do." - Kafpauzo

Actions begat consequences to those actions. Those who are unwilling to accept the consequences should not take those actions.

And his murderous actions were aided and abetted by the United States Government, who not only gave Pinochet a list of people to murder but hid the names of the murderers, and those who ordered those murders.

Releasing those names and their crimes and halting American Complicity in those murders would have saved lives.

Actions begat consequences to those actions. Those who are unwilling to accept the consequences should not take those actions.

You are saying that resisting Pinochet begat consequences. You're saying that those who were unwilling to accept the consequences of resisting Pinochet should not have resisted Pinochet.

Anything less is an abrogation of personal responsibility.

You're saying that anyone who knew members of the resistance against Pinochet should reveal them to the regime. That would be the right thing to do, because anything less is an abrogation of personal responsibility.

Of course people who resist oppression are aware of the risks. This fact, alone by itself, does not mean that delivering them to torture and death is the right thing to do.

It's very fortunate for humanity that your attitude is rare. If it were common, no resistance to oppression would be possible. All of humanity would be perpetually subjected to dictatorship and horrible cruelty.

Bush's wars were [...] disastrous because of their enormously destructive long-term effects on the relationships between the peoples of Earth.

Long-term effects need dialectical thinking.

Shortly after 9/11 there was a lot of sympathy for the US.

Not for the (government of the) US, but for the victims of its global policies which include the WTC victims.

many left-leaning people here in Europe, who had always felt a strong animosity toward the US

You are grossly simplifying. "Left-leaning" comprises a huge spectrum, from reactionaries like Stalin admirers to people who hate any misleading generalization of their stances on fighting the Nazis and bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Dresden).

Many of these left-leaning people [...] started distinguishing

No. The coming-out of a leftist is the moment s/he starts distinguishing.

Somewhat similar changes happened essentially around the globe. It looked like a small step toward different attitudes between the peoples of Earth, like we might be moving away from aggressively entrenched attitudes toward more open, listening attitudes, which in the long run might allow humanity to move together toward common goals.

This changed terrorism from marginal, universally despised, to a major factor

No. Marginal was only the use of the term. Terrorizing innocent people was never marginal and never universally despised. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Gazah, Libya - normal warfare of coward bomber pilots against unknown innocents. The unknown innocents are despised by their killers.

I don't expect every Afghan driver and guide to make exactly the analysis that I make, and align his life along my conclusions. I expect him to act based on what happens to his family and neighbors.If the Taliban forbid his daughter's schooling, and he feels that his daughter should have schooling, he'll make his decisions based on that.

Your premise is the Afghan driver not following your (wrong) analysis. And your conclusion is the Afghan driver following your (wrong) analysis.Your premise is wrong as you don't consider tribal, educational, and ideological/religious factors.Your conclusion is wrong as a loving father does not endanger his daughter's life by collaborating with foreign troops who are killing the children of his compatriots.

it would never occur to me to condemn them all out of hand, the way Vendicar and you do

It is you who is condemning out of hand. By suggesting that I do so.And by the permanent use of gross simplifications.

When so many people risk their life, it's far more likely that they do it for goals that they believe in.

Of course. That does not, however, imply the honorability of their goals. (You didn't understand my notion of Himmler's Posen speech.)Moreover: The end does not justify the means.And: Beware the Golden Rule.

If the Cables contain names, we already know that the U.S. gave those names to Pinochet.

Impossible. Pinochet was two decades ago. The cables are recent and have nothing to do with Pinochet.

But with the names of the rebels. The Chilean administration got the lists from Pinochet who got them from the US.

I did not ask whether you think the cables endanger Pinochet's victims, since that's utterly impossible.

I asked whether you similarly condemn the resistance against Pinochet because of their secrecy.

You'd have to specify first what "resistance" you are referring to. The end doesn't justify the means.

You're saying that anyone who knew members of the resistance against Pinochet should reveal them to the regime.

Wrong conclusion and malicious insinuation.

It's very fortunate for humanity that your attitude is rare.

Unfortunately your attitude of maliciously insinuating and grossly simplifying is not rare at all. Innocent victims of this attitude are to be found in every jail and every society clinging to death penalty.

Over and over again you have stated that revealing these names was the right thing to do.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy fellow user. He neither said so nor did he imply this proposition.

You yourself have stated, over and over again, that what the US did here, revealing the names of resistance fighters, is exactly the right thing to do.

He did not say so. It's you who is maliciously insinuating he did.

According to your own words, resistance fighters who keep their identity secret are dishonourable cowards and should be revealed.

No. Any collaboration with killers of the innocent is dishonorable. Acting as a resistance fighter does not justify the killing of the innocent.And he didn't say their names _should_ be revealed. It's a malicious insinuation of yours.

All your twisting of the truth doesn't make us forget that innocent lives are endangered when the truth can be hidden by those who don't care for what they call "collateral damage".

However, it's worth noting that the word terrorism means that the perpetrator specifically targets civilian bystanders, for the specific purpose of causing fear, not for causing military defeat. The terrorist takes efforts to maximize fear and suffering, and usually makes no attempt to weaken his enemy's military strength.

The word military attack means that the perpetrator specifically tries to weaken the enemy's military strength, and will avoid hurting civilians if the military goal can be achieved without hurting them.

Both are horrible, but the horrors do have different names. Both words are constantly misused in the lies and propaganda.

Neither the fate of humanity nor US foreign policy hinge on the WTC mass murder. US domestic policy does, however.

At that time, the world was on its way out of the Cold War's perpetually entrenched enmity. This enmity motivated a huge lot of conflicts. Both sides were arming various groups and inciting war. There was hope that the world was on its way out of this perpetual cruelty.

Bush created what amounts to a new Cold War.

The way that some people talk hatefully about Moslems today sounds exactly like some people talked about Jews between the World Wars. This dangerous tension became possible with the tensions and hostility that Bush fostered. 9/11 would not by itself have created these tensions.

Influential people on both sides profit by inciting enmity. Average joes on both sides obediently hate the people on the other side. But the real enemies are not on the other side. The real enemies are those influential people on both sides who profit by inciting hatred.

They probably feel that they were paid well for doing the thing that they did.

I claim that it is dishonorable for cowards to do so and then expect their actions to be kept secret. What you are talking about of course, but not explicitly saying is that they are involved in complicity with an enemy, and wish to keep their identities secret for that reason.

(Except I did say it. Anyway...)

You can't _know_ if their motive is money. You _assume_. That's what "condemn out of hand" means. Carelessly condemning without knowing.

That does not, however, imply the honorability of their goals.

Nor does it prove dishonour. Fighting oppression can be honourable or dishonourable. In any war, both kinds will exist abundantly.

I did not ask whether you think the cables endanger Pinochet's victims, since that's utterly impossible.

You are right only if referring to the dead victims.

No. What I said applies to those who are still alive.

You can't endanger them by revealing them today. All of them are already publicly known. Chile has been a democracy for 21 years. Pinochet has been dead for five years. Chile is grateful (albeit warily) and very obviously not a threat to those who made its democracy possible by fighting Pinochet.

I replied to your claim that secrecy is dishonourable.

I didn't see such a claim.

What makes you think Vendicar can't speak for himself? Anyway, he says clearly that they are dishonorable, and so is their need for secrecy:

Why should collaborators be protected? [...] If you conduct yourself in a honorable manner there is no need for secrecy.

Not for the (government of the) US, but for the victims of its global policies which include the WTC victims.

Those people whom I described in my comment felt it the way I described it. You are talking about other people who felt differently.

many left-leaning people here in Europe, who had always felt a strong animosity toward the US

You are grossly simplifying. "Left-leaning" comprises a huge spectrum,

I was not talking about all the people who fit the obviously very wide description "left-leaning". I was talking about those whom I was talking about. That's what "many" means. Some unspecified subset, the subset that I was talking about.

Many of these left-leaning people [...] started distinguishing

No. The coming-out of a leftist is the moment s/he starts distinguishing.

What? What does that mean? In any case, those I was talking about did it at that point.

A former WikiLeaks staffer has explained why he turned his back on WikiLeaks. A brief excerpt:

[...] By drawing attention to, and then publishing in full, the unredacted cache of documents, WikiLeaks has done the cause of internet freedom and of whistleblowers more harm than US government crackdowns ever could.

Before the first publication of carefully redacted cables, human rights activists, NGOs, and organisations working with victims of horrific crimes contacted WikiLeaks begging us to take steps not to publish any names. To be able to assure them details would be protected was an immeasurable relief.

These cables contain details of activists, opposition politicians, bloggers in autocratic regimes and their real identities, victims of crime and political coercion, [...]

@frajoIt is very satisfying to see your philosophy of hatred being patiently and skillfully unraveled by this gentleman. Whereas I tend to succumb to revulsion and react emotionally at your hatred of order and your love of enemies.

Frajos philosophy is simple: if someone is angry with you it must be your fault. If you have more than someone else you must have stolen it. If you move to protect yourself you are the aggressor. And if someone else gets hurt while you are protecting yourself it is YOUR FAULT.

Influential people on both sides profit by inciting enmity. Average joes on both sides obediently hate the people on the other side. But the real enemies are not on the other side. The real enemies are those influential people on both sides who profit by inciting hatred.

Except that when an enemy exists which absolutely has to be fought and defeated, and this will require suffering and sacrifice by the general public, then their emotional investment in this conflict is necessary. Enmity often needs to be incited in the same way that conciliation does.

General Lee told his troops give up the fight after appomattox. The American people had to be convinced not to hate Japanese after ww2. This was no easy task.

TheGhostofOtto1923, thanks for the encouraging words! Your encouragement is much appreciated!

Actually, my calm tone is partly an act. After writing an initial version of a comment, I often have to go back and remove outbursts, and try to find calmer, sharper wordings.

I do this because I find that calm wordings often make comments far stronger. Even reactions such as revulsion can often jab much more sharply if the wording is calmly cold, rather than upset. Upset wordings are much easier to shrug off. They make it easier to just yell back and forget.

Also, I often write more for the many friendly, passive readers than for the one annoying debate opponent.

As a bonus, the calm tone sometimes inspires opponents who were upset to calm down. When this happens, a much more interesting debate ensues!

But of course I don't always have the time and patience that this requires.

I disagree. If presidents and generals can see the need for action rationally, then so can the people.

My country, Sweden, has air force in Libya and army soldiers in Afghanistan, yet there has been no hate campaigning whatsoever. No heated talk about "enemy", "terrorists" etc. No outbursts.

Of course there's quite a lot of opposition and debate. But that exists under hate campaigns too. In a democracy there's always a lot of debate. This doesn't prevent action. Debate is the incessant life-blood of democracy. Democracy can handle it.

The big difference is that under hate campaigns the debate gets smothered under shrill accusations of treason. This is another way of saying that hate campaigns short-circuit and disable democracy.

In my opinion, disabling democracy is a very, very serious matter.

The people can and should meet the need for action in a rational state of mind. Always. Democracy should never be smothered.

So you find war revolting? Too revolting to look at with Calmness and a sharp eye, in the hope if finding out exactly what causes it and what can be done to stop it for good?

The People who Stage and Wage wars are counting upon your reluctance. Keep up the good work. Stick to your pleasant fantasies and spout your haughty moral dogma. This gives them Time to go about Planning and Executing the next one.

Because They KNOW, as you would also know if you dared to look, that war is the unavoidable result of the human tropical reproduction rate. And if wars are not waged rationally and with Purpose they would only happen by themselves.

Wildfire wars benefit no one and threaten everything. Engineered wars are the Only Way to lasting peace. And if we LOOK at war with this in mind, this is exactly what we see.

Planned wars preserve the Culture which has finally Learned how to end them. Spontaneous wars would destroy this Culture.

'Say if we try real hard maybe we can stop it! No rain! No rain! No rain!' Etc.

-Didn't work. It got very muddy.

Long long ago People learned that They couldn't stop the rain. But They could build dams and divert flood water for irrigation. The Menace became a Blessing. But only for a little while. Pops only grew faster with more food and societies only collapsed more quickly a result.

They're still working on this Problem but it looks like They're finally close to getting it Right. Growth rates among western indigenes has reached equilibrium. Yay.

Than misinformation on energy that powers the Sun, Earth's climate and sustains our lives [1-3].

The National Academy of Sciences was "established by an Act of Congress . . . signed by President Lincoln on March 3, 1863, . . . which calls upon the NAS to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" whenever called upon to do so by any department of the government" [1].

Please join me in asking Congressional representatives to request a FULL and CANDID evaluation from NAS of conflicting information in [1-3] BEFORE approving more funds for government research.

@Otto - So you would prefer people to not discuss issues calmly? You'd prefer people just yell at each other with no calm discourse?

So what you're saying, is that you prefer trolls to non-trolls? Why?

I prefer people to say whats on their minds. Anything on yours re; the topic or pseudotopic?

'No emotion: death.' -Tchaikovsky

Well I would potentially argue that one is able to say what is on ones mind when one is calm and thinking clearly... Although I would agree that emotion can result in some fun rants. Yet I'm getting sick of my flatmate coming home drunk and ranting all night and not making any sense whatsoever, but that's another story.

I do this because I find that calm wordings often make comments far stronger. Even reactions such as revulsion can often jab much more sharply if the wording is calmly cold, rather than upset. Upset wordings are much easier to shrug off. They make it easier to just yell back and forget.

I thought this was referring to my posts and not frajos. I did not recognize you from your frajo deconstruction and thought you were revulsing over my musings about world domination, as frajo and others of his anti-reality 'ilk' will do. Sorry. I was on a roll.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.